Understanding the Gospel of Mark

The thesis is directed to the in effect(p) student of the New Testament--pastors, theologians, Bible scholars--and those of the "laity" whose interest in the Scriptures challenges them to a deeper consciousness of them. It may hurl broad implications for the rendering of the other church doctrines as well. If saphead is the earliest of the 4 droponical Gospels, as is commonly accepted, and serves substantially as the ground for Matthew and Luke, as many scholars and commentators contend, then the recognition of Mark as an example of a particular genre of Hellenist literature (instead of something alone(p) relative to the rise of Christianity) demands a reassessment of our thinking slightly the other Gospels as well.

Bryan's argument, however, does nothing to undermine Christian doctrine or the interpretation of Scripture which has guided Christianity for about two thousand years. Instead, it seeks to persuade the cross-fileer to come to an understanding that a considerable portion of what has been preached and written about the Gospel of Mark (at least within the last couple of centuries) has been base upon many naive assumptions about life and culture in "New Testament times." In our "modern" wisdom, we have perchance not given enough credit to the level of worldliness of our first century forebears. Bryan brings us back to reality.

One of Bryan's headsman assertions is that at the time Mark was written, "authors who wrote for

publication generally weared their work to be read aloud in groups, rather than privately or taciturnly by individuals" (p. 3). Thus, it is necessary to evaluate what kind of text Mark is, and also to determine what the author's intention for the use of the Gospel was. This disregard be done, as Bryan seeks to do, by comparing Mark to whole caboodle of the period. Bryan challenges his reader to join him in the effort to look for the signs which would taper that Mark was intended to be similar to written forms that were commonly known in the first century, as well as those which distinguish whether Mark was intended for literal performance or private use.

In his conclusion, Bryan asserts that "Mark was designed for oral contagion--and for transmission as a continuous whole . . .

(A)gain and again we nominate ourselves dealing with broad thematic effects that would emerge naturally in the course of a performance of the whole, but that can hardly emerge otherwise" (p. 152). According to the evidence Bryan has amassed, at that place can be no doubt that Mark is a dramatic work. The author of Mark, like others of his milieu (Jewish and gentile) and genre, used "oral techniques in composing written texts, partly because their education has been such(prenominal) that these techniques come naturally to them, and partly for the obvious reason that they expect to be heard" (p. 154).

Bryan has, wisely, not descended into the realm of Biblical commentary. If in that location is a weakness to Bryan's work, it is in his twelfth chapter, "Conclusions: Mark in Its Setting" (pp. 152-162). The "weakness" is that after laying a 150-page foundation, his conclusions have been abbreviated to a mere ten pages (including bibliographic notes). In this, he seems to leave his reader wanting just a bit more substance to digest in the final examination synthesis of all that has preceded. His conclusions do not clearly and in effect enumerate the impact his thesis has for the contemporary Christian community. Also, his
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!